DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110297--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 19, 2026, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They can still take you to court, but the point is that by
engaging and disputing the debt you've done a few things:
- Shown to Smart that you're potentially not an easy target
- Set out your grounds of dispute, which will eventually form
the basis of your defence
- Shown to the court that you have behaved reasonably and taken
steps to resolve the issue
- If one of your appeals is accepted, avoided court (and several
months of paperwork) altogether
Court should be seen as a last resort, and judges expect
litigants to have behaved reasonably - this includes taking
steps to dispute the matter with the claimant before it reaches
the court. If you're unfortunate enough for this to go all the
way to a court hearing, then if you've disputed the matter at
every stage, you potentially look a lot better to the judge than
someone who has buried their head in the sand and ignored
everything, forcing the matter to end up in court.
#Post#: 110299--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: c4733
Date: February 19, 2026, 5:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you [member=103]DWMB2[/member] for the sound advice, I
shall indeed be appealing today and post here the outcome.
Though I do hope i'm still within time as I believe the letter
was dated 20th or 21st of Janruary?
#Post#: 114609--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: c4733
Date: March 27, 2026, 9:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
So I appealed going the NTO issued by Smart Parking going back 5
weeks ago and have heard nothing since. I will take this as
Smart Parking has discontinued their pursuit in the matter, but
if I do hear anything in the future I will post it here.
Thank you everyone that offered advice hear in the matter.
#Post#: 114612--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 27, 2026, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: c4733 link ---
>
> I will take this as Smart Parking has discontinued their
pursuit in the matter
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure I would. Check your spam folder and chase them.
They may have changed, of course, but the last time I had an
appeal upheld by Smart Parking they emailed me to tell me.
#Post#: 114620--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: c4733
Date: March 27, 2026, 9:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Doubled checked my emails and have received nothing. Will chase
and keep everyone updated.
#Post#: 115407--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: c4733
Date: April 9, 2026, 3:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Late update.
Found this correspondance under the name of:
donotreply@citysmarti.co.uk lurking in my Spam box last week and
have not been able to act upon it until now. I have 28 days from
the date of the letter (14.03.26) to appeal to the Independent
Appeals Service (IAS), which I believe only gives me two days
remaining! :-[
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Parking Ltd
14/03/2026
www.smartparking.com
Unit 43, Elmdon Trading Estate, Bickenhill Lane, Birmingham,
B377HE
Dear
Parking Charge:
Thank you for your recent communication.
Having considered your appeal in detail we have decided to
uphold the Parking Charge (PC) as we believe that it was
correctly issued in accordance with the terms and conditions
advertised within the area concerned. As your appeal was
received within the initial discount period, we have extended
the discount period until 31/03/2026.
Having noted your comments, we are satisfied that the Parking
Charge has been issued correctly and your appeal is rejected.
We can confirm that the Parking Charge was issued due to
insufficient paid time. Our payment system shows that no valid
payment was made for your vehicle registration **** *** for the
91 minutes that your vehicle remained on site.
As clearly stated on the car park signage, all motorists are
required to purchase a valid ticket by entering the full and
correct vehicle registration mark into the payment machine or by
using an approved alternative payment method. A payment must be
made to cover the full duration of the stay from point of entry
to point of exit. As no payment was recorded for your vehicle,
the Terms and Conditions have been breached.
As you were informed in our initial correspondence, we can
confirm that the Parking Charge was issued in accordance with
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The parking
contravention occurred on 10.01.2026, and this notice was issued
on 21.01.2026, within the 14-day period required. You were also
invited to provided us with the driver’s full name and current
postal address, if you were not the driver at the time of the
parking event.
If you wish to provide driver details, please send them via
email to: COD@smartparking.com
Failure to provide these details, will result in Smart Parking
using the provisions under POFA, 2012 to pursue you, the
registered keeper, for the outstanding balance of the PC.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure
and therefore you now have two options, you can pay or appeal
further with IAS – you cannot do both.
The Appellant has the right to appeal to an Independent Appeals
Service, (IAS) using the instructions below. Please note, should
you decide to appeal to the IAS, and your appeal is subsequently
rejected, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer
be available and the full amount of the PC will be due.
If the appellant decides to appeal to the IAS, they will need to
visit the website,
HTML https://www.theias.org/
where further details
of how to appeal can be found. The appellant has 28 days from
the date of this letter to submit an appeal to IAS.
Alternatively, your 3 payment options are:
• By Post: Please send a cheque or postal order (payable to
Smart Parking Ltd) to Smart Parking Ltd, Unit 43, Elmdon Trading
Estate, Bickenhill Lane, Marston Green, Birmingham B37 7HE.
• By Web: To make a payment online with a debit or credit card,
please visit
www.smartparking.com and have your Parking Charge number to
hand.
• By Phone: Pay via our 24 hour automated telephone payment
service on 0330 057 6230.
Please have your Parking Charge number to hand. Please note that
calls to this number cost
up to 7p per minute, plus your phone company’s access charge.
Yours sincerely,
Smart Parking Limited
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to to appeal today and look for information on here to
help me fight this and in the meantime welcome all postive and
helpful advice.
#Post#: 115415--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 9, 2026, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you show us a draft before submitting anything we can take a
look.
#Post#: 115419--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: c4733
Date: April 9, 2026, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Found this information on here from [member=26]b789[/member] to
[member=7409]davidmac[/member] used as a Letter of Claim
response of which I take no credit for. I have made amendments
to it as a draft and hope to use it as an appeal to IAS.
What's your thoughts?
This appeal is submitted by the registered keeper. No admission
is made as to the identity of the driver. The operator bears the
burden of establishing liability. They have failed to do so. The
Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled for the reasons set out
below.
1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The operator asserts reliance
on PoFA and threatens to pursue the keeper under its provisions,
yet the statutory preconditions for keeper liability have not
been satisfied. The notice fails to specify any period of
parking as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). ANPR timestamps of
entry and exit do not constitute a period of parking and cannot
prove that the vehicle was parked or stationary at any relevant
time. A vehicle passing through, queueing, or circling for a
space does not fall within the statutory meaning of parking.
Non-compliance with paragraph 9(2)(a) extinguishes any prospect
of invoking keeper liability.
2. The Notice to Keeper fails to contain the mandatory
invitation prescribed by paragraph 9(2)(e). Instead of inviting
the keeper either to pay the charge or to identify the driver,
the document attempts to impose a compulsory requirement to
provide the driver's full name and address. This is not the
statutory wording, is not legally enforceable, and constitutes a
misstatement of the keeper’s legal obligations. A notice that
does not contain the exact statutory invitation cannot give rise
to keeper liability under any circumstances. The operator’s
subsequent rejection letter repeats the same misrepresentation,
reinforcing its non-compliance.
3. The operator has provided no evidence of any actual parking.
The only material relied upon is a pair of ANPR images showing
the vehicle entering and exiting the site. These images do not
establish that the vehicle was parked, that it stopped, that it
occupied a bay, or that any relevant terms were engaged. ANPR is
incapable of proving parking. The operator must prove both the
factual basis of the alleged breach and the contractual terms
allegedly binding the driver. They have proved neither.
4. No evidence of signage has been produced. The operator
asserts that signs are clearly displayed throughout the site but
has provided no contemporaneous images, no entrance signage, no
site plan, and no evidence of the driver’s proximity to any
alleged contractual terms. A contract cannot be formed where
terms are not communicated with adequate prominence. The
operator has provided no proof that any such contractual offer
was made, let alone accepted.
5. The operator has produced no evidence of landowner authority.
They do not own the site and cannot issue or enforce parking
charges without a valid and contemporaneous contract with the
landholder. Assertions of authority are insufficient. The
operator must provide the actual agreement demonstrating their
right to impose charges and pursue litigation. Their silence on
this issue indicates that no such authority has been evidenced.
6. The operator’s correspondence repeatedly misstates the effect
of PoFA by asserting that they will automatically hold the
keeper liable if the keeper does not identify the driver. That
is not the law. Keeper liability arises only if the operator has
complied fully and strictly with Schedule 4. They have not.
Their misrepresentation of statutory rights and obligations is
improper and renders the charge unenforceable against the
keeper.
7. The operator has failed to discharge the burden of proof.
They have not proved that a contract existed, that its terms
were communicated, that the vehicle was parked, that any breach
occurred, or that they have the legal standing to issue charges.
They have also failed to establish compliance with PoFA, meaning
the keeper cannot be pursued. The absence of evidence from the
operator is fatal.
In summary, the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant, the evidence
is inadequate, the operator’s assertions are contradictory and
legally incorrect, and no lawful basis for keeper liability
exists. The operator has not provided the necessary factual or
legal foundation to support the charge. The appeal must
therefore be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.
#Post#: 115450--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: c4733
Date: April 9, 2026, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Started the appeal process with IAS by registering. I have until
15/04/2026 23:59 to submit my appeal. :o Any thoughts on the
above draft guys?
#Post#: 115452--------------------------------------------------
Re: SMART PARKING - NOTICE TO KEEPER - PARKING CHARGE
DIR By: c4733
Date: April 9, 2026, 9:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Info for other users in what to expect when registering with IAS
on the website.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have told us that you are being held liable for the parking
charge.
What happens when I have submitted my Appeal?
Once you have submitted your appeal, the case will be sent to
the parking operator so that they can provide their account.
The Parking Operator is provided 5 working days to upload
sufficient evidence to show that you are liable for the charge.
Once they have submitted their evidence you will be able to log
in and see it. You will then have TWO options:
1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by
making any representations that you consider to be relevant as
to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any photographs
or other evidence that you may have. Once you submit your appeal
you will not have the ability to add to or amend your
submission.
- OR -
2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you consider that
the information provided is not capable of showing that you are,
on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you
may choose this option. WARNING, the Adjudicator will assess
ONLY the evidence provided by the operator and NOTHING MORE. You
will not have the opportunity of making representations and the
Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities,
whether you are liable for the parking charge.
You will then be notified by email when you are able to proceed
further.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, what happens if you fill out all the relevant
info on IAS and do not submit an appeal and wait for the
operators reposnse? Just curious.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page